Forum:Is the AR info applicable to the PR?
According to the Okudas (in the upcoming Encyclopedia) and Simon Pegg's recent comments, the latest policy is that whatever happened in the prime reality may or may not have happened in the alternate. In consequence, while it is quite likely that all the pre-2233.04 information about the alternate George Kirk, for example, also applies to the prime George Kirk, there is no strict requirement for that to be the case. Writers can choose one way or another. Therefore, my proposal is for any AR article to include only information from AR sources, while any PR article would include only information from PR sources. As a side benefit, such an approach would remove the need for duplicate edits and still allow readers (and potential official writers) to switch back and forth and decide for themselves which information applies to both realities and which doesn't. If certain articles have already been written under the old assumption that they're the same, the information can be moved around gradually; the point is merely to agree on the approach before deleting walls of text. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 15:27, August 22, 2016 (UTC) :It was previously stated by the writers of the first films that the AR was identical to the PR up until the point of the split (when Nero showed up). So... why should this new statement take precedence? -- sulfur (talk) 15:33, August 22, 2016 (UTC) :: is there really that much overlap? Also this is an encyclopedia, not a writers guide.--Alan (talk) 15:37, August 22, 2016 (UTC) The new statement shows that Pegg and Orci disagree, which means that Memory Alpha shouldn't accept the word of either but merely adjust its policy in order to remain on the safe side. That's all: the information would still be there, just distributed appropriately between the realities. For example, as far as I can tell, we don't actually know anything about the prime George Kirk (not even his name). The article disappears, all the information remains on his alternate page. And Alan is right that this is an encyclopedia and not a writers' guide. If it were a writers' guide, it could easily recommend to prime writers to borrow from the alternate reality, but an encyclopedia needs to remain purely factual. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 15:44, August 22, 2016 (UTC) :: so in that case, we should treat this just as we would in any other alternate timeline situation. Everything pre-alteration coexists with the prime reality. No changes necessary, despite writers intent until the writer intent is actually put into play in the filmography.--Alan (talk) 15:53, August 22, 2016 (UTC) :::Writers intent is already clear in the canon. In , Spock specifically states the changes to the timeline are "beginning with the attack on USS Kelvin." He also calls the timeline a "new" one. Those lines of on-screen dialogue trump whatever alternative viewpoint the Okudas, Simon Pegg, or anyone else is promoting behind-the-scenes. --Defiant (talk) 15:58, August 22, 2016 (UTC) The alternate Spock had no way of knowing just how much was affected. They were formulating a theory in that bridge scene. We just can't be sure that everything pre-alteration coexists with the prime reality. Pegg and the Okudas have cast official doubt on that idea, which means that walls of supposedly canon text could turn out to be as not-quite-canon as, say, a writers' guide, deleted scenes from a script, technical manuals written by production people. Memory Alpha usually isn't fine with such information existing in its canon sections. As background information, sure, but not something that future writers will necessarily have to take into account. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 16:09, August 22, 2016 (UTC) :Note... here's the image that was released around the same time as , that was done in conjunction with STO and the writers involved with the movie/etc. And here's one from IDW's release... that was done in consultation with... Orci. -- sulfur (talk) 16:11, August 22, 2016 (UTC) Yes, but that was then and this is now. You don't even need those diagrams, since you can also quote Orci directly, but I'm saying that as of 2016, there is a real possibility that supposedly canon information is more like "recommended canon", closer to something we would find in a writers' guide. Why shouldn't the original Kirk's parents be named George and Winona, why shouldn't George be born in 2204 or so, but is it as canon as something from the same reality? Not really. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 16:21, August 22, 2016 (UTC) :::Is it canon that Spock is just "formulating a theory"? No, the film doesn't portray it that way, as the theory isn't contradicted or even further questioned, so it's treated as a fact on-screen. It's therefore right that we do the same thing here. --Defiant (talk) 16:27, August 22, 2016 (UTC) ::::I say what's on screen is on screen. Nero showing up is the only divergent point until we see otherwise. As painful as it can be I've never liked the idea of optional canon. - Compvox (talk) 17:02, August 22, 2016 (UTC) The prime canon can be optional in the alternate reality by the very nature of this split, not because someone decided they don't like certain films or episodes. Defiant and Compvox both stick to a certain interpretation of the dialogue, whereas the new actors and other visual changes make it easier to believe that any similarities are the exception, not the other way around. Even if you disagree with this particular idea, it does remain the safest way of avoiding both duplication and conjectural information that could be ignored in later shows or movies. If necessary, certain articles can contain a note on top saying Unless proven otherwise, events before 2233 probably apply to the alternate reality also (substitute prime reality in alternate articles). -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 19:21, August 22, 2016 (UTC) :::::I like that note idea - calls for a template. Given that Kirk's dad will appear in the 14th film, there might be further differences between the two timelines later. --LauraCC (talk) 19:46, August 22, 2016 (UTC) :::Admittedly, I'm not a fan of contradicting canon to such a huge degree as the template idea would currently be. But it's interesting food for thought, for later, potentially. --Defiant (talk) 19:58, August 22, 2016 (UTC) Though this is never stated, one can assume that other incursions into the past (such as The Voyage Home or First Contact) would be retroactively altered or erased by Nero's incursion, especially if one factors in the possibility of incursions from the Kelvin Timeline into the pre-divergent past.Alkonium (talk) 21:12, August 22, 2016 (UTC) ::::Then I'm in good company. I agree with Defiant. Waiting on this is best. - Compvox (talk) 05:47, August 23, 2016 (UTC) Memory Alpha can wait as long as it likes, but it doesn't change the documented fact that any canon derived from the opposite reality has become officially suspect, as likely to be correct as anything conjectured by the Okudas or the official technical manuals. If Memory Alpha is fine with such an inconsistency in its canon policy, it can continue as before; I'm just pointing out a way to remain on the safe side here and avoid duplication at the same time. --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 08:04, August 23, 2016 (UTC) :::You're the one with the inconsistency; you apparently want to accept canon until such a point as some production staffer disagrees with it. Our policy, unlike yours, doesn't change on a behind-the-scenes whim. --Defiant (talk) 08:16, August 23, 2016 (UTC) :::Also, your first statement in that post, regarding the opinion that "any canon derived from the opposite reality has become officially suspect" as a "fact" is utter drivel. Sorry for saying that, but it really is. Oh, and thank you for your permission to "continue as before"; it's not like we ever needed it!! --Defiant (talk) 08:22, August 23, 2016 (UTC) ::::PreviouslyOn24. Please, please read MA:POLICY and MA:CANON. It's required reading at the Academy. - Compvox (talk) 08:39, August 23, 2016 (UTC) Ok, so Defiant is calling the cowriter of "some production staffer", but Roberto Orci, whose comments the current policy is based on, apparently isn't "some production staffer" because he cowrote two movies instead of one. Michael Okuda is also "some production staffer", despite the fact that he successfully canonized many of his conjectures in TOS Remastered, and the slide he previewed showing the Kelvin Timeline article from the new Encyclopedia, the one that states that changes may have occurred pre-2233, supposedly is "utter drivel". Nice. We're merely talking about not duplicating information between articles, but it seems that having a prime article on George Kirk is more important than being sure that all the information is applicable. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 11:15, August 23, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Can you post a link to this Encyclopedia preview slide? NetSpiker (talk) 11:27, August 23, 2016 (UTC) :::conflict Oh, for goodness sake, Po24!! Are you not getting this yet?! "Some production staffer" means anyone who works on the show; I obviously wasn't being specific when I said that, and it could be Orci just as much as it could be anyone else. Understand?! The fact is that we trust canon more than any behind-the-scenes talk. Therefore, we're not trusting Orci's comments over anyone else; we're trusting canon (perhaps try repeatedly saying that to yourself to get the full meaning!). Because Spock states (and he does) that the changes in the timeline begin with the attack on the Kelvin, and that is treated as a fact in canon, we treat it as a fact on here. You really ought to read our canon policy page, at MA:CANON. Btw, I wasn't aware of any "slide". Can someone please direct me to info about that? --Defiant (talk) 11:34, August 23, 2016 (UTC) . And no, Defiant, it doesn't work like that. Someone official needed to tell us that none of the novels are canon, not even those written by actual TOS or Voyager writers. You cannot get that internally from the show. You're also reading way too much into the movie, by treating Spock's theory as absolute fact. That's adding your external opinion into it. The alternate Spock didn't became all-seeing, all-knowing in that scene where they all theorize about Nero. You need Orci's comments to go beyond that, and now we have others. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 11:41, August 23, 2016 (UTC) :Please note. This isn't Star Wars. For MA, the novels, comics, games, etc have always been considered Apocrypha. Orci previously stated that the comics he was involved in were "canon". MA does not consider them such. :We have never needed someone on staff saying "the novels are not canon". Hell, staff (Gene) has previously stated that TAS and The Final Frontier were non-canon. :We deal with what's on-screen primarily. We will document what's been stated off-screen, but will not treat that as gospel when it's not visible on-screen. -- sulfur (talk) 11:48, August 23, 2016 (UTC) Ok, but what do we know from onscreen about Kirk Prime's father? Spock to Kirk: "You often spoke of him as being your inspiration for joining Starfleet. He proudly lived to see you become Captain of the Enterprise." Unless there was an offhand comment in TOS I don't recall, anything more you can say is "If all the theorizing in (2009) is correct and means what we think it means, then...and here we repeat pre-Nero information about the alternate George Kirk". You're basing everything on alternate Spock's theories. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 11:58, August 23, 2016 (UTC) :::For the umpteenth time, it's treated as a fact in canon, which is why we treat it as a fact here. Granted, Spock doesn't become all knowing (etc.) before he makes his statements, but that's not what I mean. Regardless of his all-knowing accession not happening (lol), his statements are still treated as fact on screen; they're not contradicted nor even questioned in canon. Also, for the purposes of this discussion, please mentally disregard Orci's comments (and everyone else's statements behind-the-scenes). Perhaps if you do that, you'll finally get what we mean! --Defiant (talk) 12:10, August 23, 2016 (UTC) I just get that you're not afraid of making assumptions based on a mere bridge conversation, because this is fiction and there won't be any consequences if you're wrong. If Spock says something and nobody contradicts him, all it means is they have no reason to. Why would they? They don't know more than he does. Nobody saw any evidence of tampering pre-Nero. Nobody visited the prime reality. You're using an off-the-cuff onscreen theory as a basis for walls and walls of assumptions about identical events. Imagine if you were there - would your next step be to swear in a Federation court that knowing what you know about the alternate George Kirk, here's the final truth on what happened to the prime George Kirk before 2233.04, based on Spock's theory which nobody contradicted, and which therefore must be true. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 12:22, August 23, 2016 (UTC) ::::::I disagree with the statement that someone official needed to tell us that the novels are not canon. The fact that the novels are frequently contradicted by on-screen Trek and by other novels is all the evidence we need that they are not canon. ::::::As for the issue being discussed, my opinion is that alternate reality versions of prime reality characters shouldn't have separate pages at all. NetSpiker (talk) 12:45, August 23, 2016 (UTC) Again, you can't decide based on onscreen evidence only. Most of the time it's hard to prove a contradiction - one can handwave a lot - and even so, you wouldn't know if it applies to all novels or only some of them. It has to be an external decision, in this case Memory Alpha's, just as it was clearly an external decision to treat alternate pre-2233.04 events as pure prime fact (and the other way around), as opposed to merely something that would probably follow from alternate Spock's theory, but still remain on much shakier ground than something we've actually seen onscreen. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 12:52, August 23, 2016 (UTC) ::::"Nobody visited the prime reality," "this is fiction," and "swearing in Federation court." Oh man Po. This is not the forum you're looking for. And they didn't Netspike. It's. Our. Policy. - Compvox (talk) 12:55, August 23, 2016 (UTC) Ok, so the conclusion is that it's Memory Alpha's unofficial version of events, consistent with Memory Alpha's decreed policy on how to interpret Spock's theories in STXI. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 13:00, August 23, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Well, yes, of course Memory Alpha is unofficial. It's a wiki written by fans. NetSpiker (talk) 13:08, August 23, 2016 (UTC) I mean that fans aren't required to make logical conclusions from onscreen events, but instead they can certainly fudge it and feel their way around them, the way Defiant assumes that Spock is right just because nobody said he's wrong (but would he do that in real life? Uh, no). -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 13:33, August 23, 2016 (UTC) :: That is literally the basis for everything on this site. Onscreen evidence prevails until proven otherwise. If and when that happens, then we sit down and figure out precedence and go from there. Until contradicts the current rationale, which it hasn't yet, then there is zero reason to co-op the plot point of a nonexistent film into canon, and if it does, we will deal with at that time. So unless you have something new to contribute to this discussion, there is really nothing else to discuss. --Alan (talk) 13:57, August 23, 2016 (UTC) ::::: The reason we have alternate reality pages for somebody is because their lives have taken a sharp turn in another direction due to Nero's interference. We don't have pages for character versions from alternate timelines that do not exist anymore or never happened. If there is a future movie that undoes the entire Kelvin timeline so that it "never happened", we might merge the character pages then.--LauraCC (talk) 15:03, August 23, 2016 (UTC) I never mentioned Star Trek 4 nor am I familiar in detail with any spoilers. The issue here is that Memory Alpha insists on using onscreen canon above all else (ok, fine), but there is nothing in the onscreen canon to confirm the idea that everything pre-2233.04 is identical in both realities. We're not jumping back and forth often enough to see that. The outline of history does seem to be more or less the same, but all the visual changes would be easier to explain by assuming that we're dealing with fundamentally different universes which merely happened to follow the same general sequence of events until 2233, and then diverged in that respect also. However, that too would be speculation, same as assuming that the realities were identical, so all I'm saying is, don't speculate. Document the facts about the two realities in their own separate articles, let the reader decide how much applies to both. Don't create an article on George Kirk Prime just because it's fun to finally seem to know something about him. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 19:20, August 23, 2016 (UTC)